Editorial: Powering the next-generation IoT applications: new tools and emerging technologies for the development of Neuromorphic System of Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain, this 3-pound mass of tissue that can easily be held in one's palm, has an inherent computational complexity that has always inspired efforts to endorse machines with some of its remarkable characteristics. Ironically, the brain computes in its own way, compared to analog or digital computers, despite sharing key concepts with both. It employs analog computation but digital communication, through spikes, both of which improve robustness to noise. This unique combination defines a new computational paradigm that we have just started to explore. \n \nThe reasons why neuromorphic systems are one of the fastest growing applications are not purely scientific, but mainly technological. For 50 years, the principle guiding computations has been Moore's Law, a macroscopic observation that we will always find ways to engineer faster, smaller and cheaper chips. But there are several reasons why Moore's Law is no longer able to keep up. First, physics: As we downsize transistors close to the atomic scale, it becomes difficult to regulate electron flow. Electrons do not necessarily adhere to Newtonian physics and may pass through the transistor barriers, a phenomenon called quantum tunneling. This makes our computer architectures inefficient. Second, we have long accepted the existence of a trade-off between computing faster and consuming less power, but this has never been a problem until we started approaching the physical limits of fabricating transistors. And the final nail in Moore's Law coffin is put by deep learning. Our computational needs are now orders of magnitude higher than what our systems can deliver. \n \nThe von-Neumann paradigm is already having more than its fair share of inefficiency—to match its brilliance. And the reason is simple. Computers have been designed with feasibility, not efficiency, at their center. And nowhere are the effects of a bad design more imminent—or the opportunity for an alternative design more compelling – than in emerging technologies, such as edge intelligence, where the computing needs become distilled, asking for real-time solutions to problems constrained by big data. A deep network running on a wearable device will deplete its battery within minutes. The sensors of an autonomous car can easily generate 1 GBps of data. These are examples of the need for real-time computing. The explosive growth of IoT is limited by the efficiency of our computing systems. We are nowhere near ready or prepared for this computational tsunami. \n \nThere is no better time than this to reconsider the feasibility of alternative solutions. What we need is a computing paradigm that is versatile, robust and power efficient, to handle these seismic shifts in our needs. And what we have now, is enough knowledge on how the brain can achieve these goals. The brain is fault tolerant. It is also extremely power efficient. And it becomes useless if you detach it from its environment: It performs self-learning, one of its most important attributes, by self-organizing based on the input it receives from the environment and other brains. \n \nIn this topic, we present efforts for advancing non-Von Neumann computations that draw from the brain's functional analogies. Below we walk through the rationale, the challenges and the advantages of redefining algorithms as spiking neural networks, where memory, learning and computing are tightly integrated to advance the implementation of enhanced IoT solutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.024 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".